How does one evaluate this lens and others like it - eg Canon 135, Sigma 135? I guess hands on would be ideal, but my problem is that there are many variables to any particular shot, you might nail a shot with a lens and determine it is great, or the reverse and conclude it is not ideal. And I don't just mean f/stop, shutter speed, ISO. Focus ability (in the case of a MF lens), camera body, PP, shooting technique and so on. And for me reading technical evaluations only goes so far. I also tend to discount reviews to a degree - at least in this case the reviewer indicated he's a Zeiss Fan boy, so that helps frame the review.

A friend of mine had a philosophy which he used when learning to play golf. He purchased the most expensive Ping clubs before he started his lessons (Ping beingt he best in his eyes). I asked why? Answer was that in golf there are plenty of variable in play, buying the most expensive clubs ruled one variable out. Can't be the clubs, must be something else.... I don't agree with that of course. But when you can't decide, maybe there's some logic there.

Ped.

Logged

It doesn't matter where you start, it's where you finish. All that counts is the photograph.

yogi

Looks like a delicious lens. I have already spent my lens budget for this year though. Maybe in the future. Would also like the 15mm zeiss. Manual focus is not always easy for me, and i get a good many rejects, but it is worthwhile for the results i get when i nail it. Not very good for action photography in my experience, but others with more experience with mf might disagree. I wonder, as some others have mentioned, if trying to mf focus @ 135mm will be more difficult than shorter lenses. I use live view & have the egs, though have not installed it yet on my 5dmkll.

yogi

I love the Canon 135L. The Zeiss is just a different flavor. The Sigma looks like an interesting prospect. I am not rich and can barely afford the expense of the Zeiss lenses, so i dont buy lenses on the spur of the moment. I have spent much time visiting Zeiss websites and have seen many images taken with Zeiss that l like. Also have used my fathers old Exacta camera w/Zeiss lens (that i inherited) and it took great photos, though i dont use it any more. I love my Canon lenses, but also like variety. And RLPhoto I hope to one day get the 50 1.2L. It is in my wish list @ B&H.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

I was quite surprised myself a while ago about the way bokeh looks on Zeiss. From what I've read, it's due to the high microcontrast of the Zeiss images, and apparently one cannot have smooth bokeh and high microcontrast at the same time.